If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Robert I can't find your bitch on OFA , could she be under a different name? Your ad says OFA on sire and dam.....
Is there a reason why you don't do elbows? We breed English Setters and have many years and have about 1000 dogs in our sales database and never had to refund money on elbows, so I don't xray. ( we have a ten year money back health guarantee)

If the foundations of our breed are "utterly irrelevant" than so too is the breed. The breed is only as good as its foundation, it is what defines a breed!

One could say these "field Lab" breeders are doing the exact opposite of what they are SUPPOSED TO do, when their lines express out of standard traits.
Instead of striving to stop it's spread, they are INTENTIONALLY reproducing it.
I don't know how many times I have read excuses here as to why it is just fine for field breeders to breed completely out of standard dogs because they love to retrieve more than breathe. It seems to me the kettle is calling the pot black....which some here claim is the only true Labrador color. I suppose that clears it up! We should all breed for and run fire-breathing, carnivorous black gazelles with a killer drive for retrieving.

He has a point. A very good point. when was the last time you saw a field bred lab with a double coat? a TRUE double coat? The show folk are not innocent either. both groups, field and show, have bred for what they want, ignoring the breed standard. The deviation from the standard in both groups is successfull because there are buyers that desire the dog with those deviations. And i just want to say"deviation" one more time for no other reason than it's a cool word.

Those LOVELY breeders of silver labs are no different. They are capitalizing on demand. As far as the poorly intended accusation of them in=breeding, isn't that how all breeds are achieved?

I can show you several hundred field bred labs with a correct, true double coat, and those are just the ones I know of. That doesn't mean they all have it, but it most certainly is present among the field-bred dogs.

He has a point. A very good point. when was the last time you saw a field bred lab with a double coat? a TRUE double coat? The show folk are not innocent either. both groups, field and show, have bred for what they want, ignoring the breed standard. The deviation from the standard in both groups is successfull because there are buyers that desire the dog with those deviations. And i just want to say"deviation" one more time for no other reason than it's a cool word.

Those LOVELY breeders of silver labs are no different. They are capitalizing on demand. As far as the poorly intended accusation of them in=breeding, isn't that how all breeds are achieved?

No he doesn't.

Dilution, is a disqualifying fault. They are INTENTIONALLY reproducing it.

Coat dilution is an Autosomal recessive trait, that as far as we can tell was eliminated, or nearly eliminated from the breed a very long time ago.

They are INTENTIONALLY increasing the carrier rate, because doing so furthers their agenda of getting "Silver" added to the list of acceptable colors.
They are deliberately trying to destroy the integrity of the AKC registry.

And they are succeeding. Their progress is slow, but they ARE succeeding in achieving their agenda.

Nobody is intentionally trying to produce Labs with a single coat. Nobody wants to add "single coat" Labs to the breed standard.

I can show you several hundred field bred labs with a correct, true double coat, and those are just the ones I know of. That doesn't mean they all have it, but it most certainly is present among the field-bred dogs.

And how many lay people know what a correct double coat looks like? FYI, it is NOT the longer "open" coat that many think it is!!

No attack on you Ironman. It's just that your post reminds me of how people refer back to the proper "type" in the Labrador Retriever all of the time. When I first saw the stocky, short otter tailed "show" dogs back in the early 90s ( I owned a show bred dog for 10 yrs) my first thought was "dayum, they don't look anything like the Dual Champions and Champions of the early to later (80s) twentieth century. My first HT dog was by a son of the great show champion Shamrock Acres Light Brigade. Believe it, show Labs today look nothing like Brigs. My question is, When people speak of "foundation", which foundation? From 1900-1980ish or late 1980s-present??? Dont mean to hijack the topic. Just saying.
QUOTE=Ironman;1075088]If the foundations of our breed are "utterly irrelevant" than so too is the breed. The breed is only as good as its foundation, it is what defines a breed!

One could say these "field Lab" breeders are doing the exact opposite of what they are SUPPOSED TO do, when their lines express out of standard traits.
Instead of striving to stop it's spread, they are INTENTIONALLY reproducing it.
I don't know how many times I have read excuses here as to why it is just fine for field breeders to breed completely out of standard dogs because they love to retrieve more than breathe. It seems to me the kettle is calling the pot black....which some here claim is the only true Labrador color. I suppose that clears it up! We should all breed for and run fire-breathing, carnivorous black gazelles with a killer drive for retrieving. [/QUOTE]

I am probably playing the devil's advocate here, but, weren't yellows, and then chocolates, originally frowned upon? I don't agree with the way silver tends to be a "fad" so far, but how do we really know? Didn't yellows and chocolates start out the same way initially?